Indie Labels To Rolling Stone: Stop Making Excuses And Say You're Sorry Already
Look, Rolling Stone and Camel really stepped in it with that poorly-disguised-as-editorial, totally illegal cartoony cig ad. Worse, though, they refuse to step out. Could be that the editors at RS are too busy taking their one to watch at their why-won't-this-hook-leave-my-head word, but let us cut through that: Jann, Levy -- it is definitely not too late to apologize. Especially when labels are sending out open letters insisting that you do. This from camp Kill Rock Stars:
We, the undersigned independent record labels, wish to share our indignation regarding Rolling Stone's November 15th pull out editorial, which featured the names of our artists in conjunction with an ad for Camel cigarettes. This editorial cartoon gives every impression of being part and parcel of the advertisement wrapped around it.The use of an artist's name to promote a brand or product should be done only with the artist's explicit consent, something that was neither solicited nor obtained from the labels or bands.
When questioned, Rolling Stone has referred to the "Indie Rock Universe" pull out section as an "editorial", but it hardly seems accidental that this editorial content is wrapped in a giant ad from R.J. Reynolds announcing their support for independent artists and labels. The idea that this was a coincidence in any way seems dubious at best.
There are two other pull out sections in this same issue of Rolling Stone. Both are wrapped in advertising, but neither of these ads could be construed as part of the editorial content within. Many of the bands named, and the labels that represent them, are very unhappy with the implication that they have any involvement with R.J. Reynolds and Camel cigarettes. We ask that Rolling Stone apologize for blurring the line between editorial and advertisement, and in doing so, implying that the bands named support the product being advertised.Honestly it isn't that Rolling Stone hasn't apologized that shocks the conscience as much as its steadfast refusal to acknowledge the insert as advertorial. One would think, at the very least, the mag's staff would want at least marginally to mitigate the appearance of its editorial input into an indie chart featuring the Plain White T's a puzzling sense of geography (Spoon's from the Northwest and the New Pornographers are from Brooklyn, apparently -- and yes we know Britt and Carl moved recently, but come on y'all).Sincerely, Kill Rock Stars, Touch and Go, Skin Graft, Lovepump United, Lucky Madison, 5RC, Audio Dregs, and Fryk Beat.
Posted at 3:59 PM
-->
-->
rolling stone is a terrible magazine.
Score = 0
great original reporting stereogum.
Score = 0
Camel, if they respond, will probably imply that were doing the bands a favor by alloting them promotional space in Rolling Stone.
Also, is anyone else here in awe of how fucked it is to use group of people (indie musicians) who largeley still have to hold down day jobs to promote the product of a multibillion dollar conglomerate? They should have at least been allowed the opportunity to negotiate a fair price for having their image swiped, planted on a product that kills you slowly (doesn't stop me, but still) and pushed as fake content in a magazine that pretty much amounts to semi-literate lifestyle pornography in the first fucking place.
Score = 0
I take solace in knowing that the ad's entire target market has probably read all about this scandal. FAIL.
Score = 0
We take solace in knowing that the about 25% of this ad's entire target market probably uses the product in question.
Score = 0
That was a ciggie ad? All this time I thought it was Rolling Stone's lame attempt to be scene and trendy.
Score = 0
eh. i smell an out of court settlement.
http://paidandpopular.blogspot.com
Score = 0
They still bother to make Rolling Stone?
Score = 0
I've seen the ad and the editorial piece, and I don't believe it's fair to assume it was intentional. You can't prove what went on in the backroom discussions between the Rolling Stone ad sales rep and the Camel media buyer, but there is nothing close to definitive that points to an intentional linking of the ad and editorial. As someone who has experience in ad buying (including integrated programs that involve the linking of advertisemet and editorial - and yes, trust me, that DEFINITELY does happen) and who is also a life-long supporter of independent music, my best guess is that it was a coincidence. And yes, Rolling Stone is a terrible terrible magazine.
Score = 0
Am I the only one who's noticed that lots of magazines to editorial gate-folds that are sponsored by advertisers)? (It's like when you buy an ad around a specific show on TV. Blender did a running series of them for like 6 months last year for their "Rock Star Wars" series. The only difference was that the advertiser wasn't a cigarette company. I wonder if anyone would have even noticed or said anything if it were a Ford advertisement or something. Never thought I'd be on Rolling Stone's side (ever! on anything!), but as a humble writer and editor myself, I definitely don't think we should set a precedent where artists featured in magazine articles or special sections have the right to dictate the advertising around things that mention their name. If anything, I think they should take exception the to bizarre and inaccurate aspects of the article. That said, RS could have made it a little more clear what was ad and what wasn't -- though, if you look at it and are familiar with the way these big mags have been operating, I don't think it's that hard to understand what's going on.
Score = 0
Am I the only one who's noticed that lots of magazines to editorial gate-folds that are sponsored by advertisers (it's like when you buy an ad around a specific show on TV)? Blender did a running series of them for like 6 months last year for their "Rock Star Wars" series. The only difference was that the advertiser wasn't a cigarette company. I wonder if anyone would have even noticed or said anything if it were a Ford advertisement or something. Never thought I'd be on Rolling Stone's side (ever! on anything!), but as a humble writer and editor myself, I definitely don't think we should set a precedent where artists featured in magazine articles or special sections have the right to dictate the advertising around articles that mention their name (however bizarre and inaccurate those articles may be). That said, they probably could have made it a little more clear what was ad and what wasn't -- though, if you look at it, I don't think it's that hard to understand what's going on.
Score = 0
Sorry for the double-post. And yes, RS really does suck. Until this, i had forgotten it was a "music" magazine.
Score = 0
Rolling Stone will probably not admit this was a problem as it exposes them to be sued. However I think the more heat that can be consistently laid on the door the better. They will hopefully not try this crap again. Keith.
Score = 0
"this crap" meaning add-sponsored special section? But that's how the modern magazine industry works. I can't help but think people are jumping on this issue and sort of exploiting a slightly the unfortunate ambiguity of the execution of this editorial package because a) they have hang-ups with smoking or b) they're really pissed that the "indie rock" coverage was crap (and for the record, i think it was). If you take the meta-view, there really isn't an issue here.
Score = 0
I agree Andy.
This controversy is overblown. It's part of a sponsored content "gatefold" ad in the magazine. There is really no difference if the cartoon content was on a standard print page and a normal camel ad ran directly adjacent to it. And that is certainly legal.
Besides, the rule is anti free speech. As much I don't support the tobacco companies, I do believe in commercial free speech. I don't want government making decisions about what kinds of ads are legal or illegal. Readers and publishers can do this themselves. It's why there aren't condom ads in Boys' Life. It's amazing how many people find these sorts of laws tolerable when it is clearly anti-1st amendment censorship. Commercial speech is still speech.
By criticizing RS in this instance, the government is trying to further extend this stupid law by expanding the definition of advertising to include sponsored editorial. Wake up people.
Score = 0